Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jharkhand High Court: Rajesh Kumar, J., modified the order passed by the tribunal to the extent that relief granted by the Tribunal is unauthorized and out of jurisdiction as Tribunal went beyond the terms of reference to pass the Award.

The present writ petition had been filed against the Award dated 18-11-2013 passed in Reference No. 13 of 1991 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad whereby reference was in favour of the workmen. The factual matrix of the present case is that all three concerned workmen were an employee of the company. They were charged for misappropriation and after conducting a departmental enquiry, they were dismissed from service. Against the said order of dismissal, an Industrial Dispute was raised, referred to as Ref. No. 13/91. Since the management failed to justify the dismissal of the workmen, the Tribunal passed an order of reinstatement in favour of the employees, Suresh Ram and Sarda Shovel. As Sukhdeo Bhuian had died during the pendency of the reference case, he had been substituted by his son namely Santosh Kumar. The issue herein is with respect to the appointment of the dependant of the deceased employee.

The Court stated that “It is trite that Tribunal gets jurisdiction to pass the Award in terms of reference. Tribunal cannot go beyond the terms of reference to pass an Award.” Further, the Court observed that reference is only with regard to justification with the order of dismissal of three workmen and issue of appointment was not the subject matter of the reference. Hence, in the absence of such reference, relief granted by the concerned Tribunal is wholly unauthorized and beyond the jurisdiction. Hence, the Court modified the award to the extent that the appointment to the dependent of the deceased employee is quashed.[Employers In re, Management of Sendra Bansjora Colliery v. Workmen, WP (L) No. 4632 of 2014, decided on 22-07-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Shekher Dhawan, J., dealt with a petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in nature of certiorari for modification of award passed by Industrial Tribunal where petitioner was denied continuity of services though reinstated.

Facts of the case are that petitioner’s services were terminated orally and no show cause notice was provided to petitioner or was paid any retrenchment compensation thereby violating Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. An industrial dispute was referred to Tribunal.

Petitioner contended that he was accepted to be employed under respondent and was a workman under Section 2(s) of the Act who has duly completed 240 days of service. Whereas respondent argued that petitioner was not entitled to reinstatement as he was not a workman under the relevant provision and that 240 days in service was not completed.

The High Court was of the view that Tribunal was right in reinstating petitioner and not continuing the service as petitioner himself failed to show his employment for a continuous period of 240 days. Tribunal has rightly exercised its discretion, therefore, no merit in writ petition was found and the same was dismissed. [Jaibir v. Industrial Tribunal,2018 SCC OnLine P&H 1359, decided on 21-09-2018]